The True God
0
i dont believe in any religion cause the most of them have errors.I think they made religion as something that control people like an ethical guideline
0
*sigh* Looks like Rbz is still spouting obscenities. Look, if you want me to take you seriously, debate me in a reasonable fashion. After all, I am a debater, not an idiot who just wants to argue with someone just for the sake of it. I will acknowledge your points, and counter them, if you present them in a fashion that doesn't look like it was written by a 10 year old who has just learned the wonders of cussing. I am not the one who needs to grow up here.
Also, if this were face to face, you would not have the balls to say any of this. Just throwing that out there. Atheists, I have noticed, have a lot more courage behind the protection of a computer screen. I expect you to debate me as though we were both in the same room, or again, I will not consider anything you are saying as credible.
For example, if you expect someone who has knowledge of jewelry to evaluate the price of a diamond ring, you bring it to him in the best condition possible. You do not present it to him covered in horse manure. No matter how valuable it is, the examiner will not touch it.
Also, if this were face to face, you would not have the balls to say any of this. Just throwing that out there. Atheists, I have noticed, have a lot more courage behind the protection of a computer screen. I expect you to debate me as though we were both in the same room, or again, I will not consider anything you are saying as credible.
For example, if you expect someone who has knowledge of jewelry to evaluate the price of a diamond ring, you bring it to him in the best condition possible. You do not present it to him covered in horse manure. No matter how valuable it is, the examiner will not touch it.
0
Agnostic myself. I enjoy the stories of all gods and what they do, but that's ust what they are as far as I'm concerned...stories. Seriously who's to say that the Greeks weren't right to some extent? Yes we know there is nothing at the top of Mt. Olympus, but that was just as high as Greeks could imagine...by all accounts there's still a likely probability than any religion, regardless of when they were thought up, coulf have been right to some extent.
0
Adder wrote...
I will acknowledge your points, and counter them, if you present them in a fashion that doesn't look like it was written by a 10 year old who has just learned the wonders of cussing. I am not the one who needs to grow up here.Actually you do, since a few curse words are too much for you to handle. But it's okay, you can dance around my points all you want.
Adder wrote...
Also, if this were face to face, you would not have the balls to say any of this.It's nice to know that you know me more than I do.
0
Adder wrote...
Atheists, I have noticed, have a lot more courage behind the protection of a computer screen. I expect you to debate me as though we were both in the same room, or again, I will not consider anything you are saying as credible.What's your problem? You do not take a word from an atheist if it isn't in person? What the hell?
0
Rbz wrote...
Adder wrote...
I will acknowledge your points, and counter them, if you present them in a fashion that doesn't look like it was written by a 10 year old who has just learned the wonders of cussing. I am not the one who needs to grow up here.Actually you do, since a few curse words are too much for you to handle. But it's okay, you can dance around my points all you want.
I'm just gonna go ahead and say this. Anyone who says swearing=unintelligent is an idiot.
Let me name a couple people who were ectremely intelligent who used curse words in their everyday conversation all the time.
George Carlin. Say what you will about him, he's culgar, offensive, and swears so much swear words almost don't seem bad anymore...but he always had good points, and nobody can deny he was a friggen genius on social matters.
Harry Truman- That's right, one of our presidents was a kown curser/vulgarity man.
Truman...good lord...every other interview had him sayig things alongthe lines of, "So do you feel bad about how many people died in Japan since you dropped the bomb?"
Harry: "I told those chink bastards the first time if they didn't surrender I would bomb their asses. They didn't surrender, so I bombed their asses, I told them I'd do it again, so I did, hell i would have done it a third time if they gave me a reason."
Yes, that is an actual, true quote.
0
Kuroneko1/2 wrote...
Adder wrote...
Atheists, I have noticed, have a lot more courage behind the protection of a computer screen. I expect you to debate me as though we were both in the same room, or again, I will not consider anything you are saying as credible.What's your problem? You do not take a word from an atheist if it isn't in person? What the hell?
I wonder if my obscenities are worse than his constant insults to those who disagree with him.
Spoiler:
0
Rbz wrote...
Adder wrote...
I will acknowledge your points, and counter them, if you present them in a fashion that doesn't look like it was written by a 10 year old who has just learned the wonders of cussing. I am not the one who needs to grow up here.Actually you do, since a few curse words are too much for you to handle. But it's okay, you can dance around my points all you want.
Adder wrote...
Also, if this were face to face, you would not have the balls to say any of this.It's nice to know that you know me more than I do.
There we go, that's a little more civil. I would be happy to debate you now. Sorry if I seem like a dillweed, but a wise man once told me- If you argue with someone never lose your dignity by doing so. You have my full apology if I was rude.
Also, I thought this article was interesting...It's a bit lengthy, but interesting nonetheless. Especially to someone like me who always believed that there was no way to prove God existed just as there was no way to disprove his existence...Hmm..
edit: Just saw your newer post- MIBUchiha was very civil, and a good person. I may disagree with him/her on some points, but unlike my first impression of you, I was not completely attacked or offended by him/her. I never said atheists couldn't be good people- and if I did I was completely wrong. What I said about the computer screen can apply to any stubborn group of individuals- In this case it just happened to apply to Rbz who was advocating for atheism.
Spoiler:
0
Adder wrote...
Spoiler:
Lol, rene descartes style.
Article wrote...
3.As Aquinas would say, there must be an "act of being" in which all entities participate. This act of being must itself exist; it must be an entity. Thomas calls this entity esse, which is Latin for "to be" or "to exist."
This is where I have big problems. That's like saying, my act of existing in the world is a separate entity from my existence in the world. WTF!
And after splitting me up, this article says that my act of existence in the world is purely actual, while my existence in the world is actual and potential. But the article didn't really distinguish the two entities before step 5 so both of them have to be nothing but pure actuality, or not. You can't just start treating them differently. That would be inconsistent. So either both of them are purely actual(and both gods) or both of them are actual and potential at the same time.
Also, since this different entity exists through my act of existing, then it has potentiality of not existing because it is contingent on my act of existing(or act of being). If I die, I'm no longer participating in the act of being, therefore, this different entity which is the act of being ceases to be. This fact alone annihilates the entire fucking argument.
0
Well
First of Im a
pearlist
wich means that I belive in
Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic
I belive the question if god exist or not is meeningles
because as far as I know everything real that there is an explanation for today dosent need god to explain anything. This makes god unneccesary because we can explain things with him or without him. It makes absolutely no difference. furthermore there seem to be no evidence or theory based on evidence that requiers god to make sense.
Therefore the question if god exist or not is as meeningful as if there were intelligent ailiens on earth, santa claus, the flying sphagheti monster, wizards like in harry potter, and so on, as long as we explain them so that they work perfectly with the world we know. But as long as there isnt anything real that requires them to make sense. I have no reason to belive in it, because when Im faced with 2 explanations and the only difference between them is that the first of them have more entities, asumptions, claims etc
I shose the second one!
Ps:
The church of the flying sphagheti monster exists, you should check out there site.
They have a section for Hate Mails ;)
First of Im a
pearlist
wich means that I belive in
Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic
I belive the question if god exist or not is meeningles
because as far as I know everything real that there is an explanation for today dosent need god to explain anything. This makes god unneccesary because we can explain things with him or without him. It makes absolutely no difference. furthermore there seem to be no evidence or theory based on evidence that requiers god to make sense.
Therefore the question if god exist or not is as meeningful as if there were intelligent ailiens on earth, santa claus, the flying sphagheti monster, wizards like in harry potter, and so on, as long as we explain them so that they work perfectly with the world we know. But as long as there isnt anything real that requires them to make sense. I have no reason to belive in it, because when Im faced with 2 explanations and the only difference between them is that the first of them have more entities, asumptions, claims etc
I shose the second one!
Ps:
The church of the flying sphagheti monster exists, you should check out there site.
They have a section for Hate Mails ;)
0
I am an atheist and do not believe in any god/goddess or plural form.
I was never convinced that a god exists. There wasn't any evidence to convince me.
My mother has some sort of belief in a higher power but does not adhere to any particular religion. My father is not religious either, but I later found out he supports some of the ideas in that stupid dianetics book.
I was never raised to accept religious claims. And this is how all kids should be raised. They should not be forced to believe something by their parents.
When I was younger I never thought about religion much. I lived in a town that had churches practically everywhere just like how you can walk out of a Starbucks and see another one across the street.
Then as I got older I realized more and more bigotry and hatred in the community. And a lot of it was caused by the many groups of religious activists. I am not saying all religious people are bigots or idiots I am just saying that bigots and idiots are easily attracted to certain religious groups.
I remember having a discussion in my art class in high school that eventually turned into a religious topic. While conversing with the other students I told them I was an atheist. My art teacher gave me that "OMG" look as if I was not human. He couldn't believe I didn't believe in god. He kept going over how the bible can prove it and more non sense. After that the people who knew I was an atheist treated me differently.
I mean WTF! people should not be judged by what they don't believe but instead by what they do believe and what actions they carry out because of those beliefs. It's as if admitting I am an atheist to them suddenly made me grow two horns and a tail.
As the years went by I realized more and more how people try to haul religion onto a pedestal free of criticism. I noticed the religious right movement and hideous propaganda like Fox News with Bill O`Reilly and Glenn Beck. I also noticed how many people rejected scientific theories like Evolution and also tried to thwart any progress in certain research fields like stem cell. Every event surprised me that people could think in such a way. I noticed the hate on abortion and the people who opposed it usually have no understanding of what an abortion was.
Religion itself is not the cause of this. Religion is not a living thing. But over thousands of years the great monotheistic religions have gained enough power to become a safe haven for bigoted views of hate and separation. It has been ingrained into our culture. Even people who are not religious in anyway feel the need to support it and deny any criticism.
I was never convinced that a god exists. There wasn't any evidence to convince me.
My mother has some sort of belief in a higher power but does not adhere to any particular religion. My father is not religious either, but I later found out he supports some of the ideas in that stupid dianetics book.
I was never raised to accept religious claims. And this is how all kids should be raised. They should not be forced to believe something by their parents.
When I was younger I never thought about religion much. I lived in a town that had churches practically everywhere just like how you can walk out of a Starbucks and see another one across the street.
Then as I got older I realized more and more bigotry and hatred in the community. And a lot of it was caused by the many groups of religious activists. I am not saying all religious people are bigots or idiots I am just saying that bigots and idiots are easily attracted to certain religious groups.
I remember having a discussion in my art class in high school that eventually turned into a religious topic. While conversing with the other students I told them I was an atheist. My art teacher gave me that "OMG" look as if I was not human. He couldn't believe I didn't believe in god. He kept going over how the bible can prove it and more non sense. After that the people who knew I was an atheist treated me differently.
I mean WTF! people should not be judged by what they don't believe but instead by what they do believe and what actions they carry out because of those beliefs. It's as if admitting I am an atheist to them suddenly made me grow two horns and a tail.
As the years went by I realized more and more how people try to haul religion onto a pedestal free of criticism. I noticed the religious right movement and hideous propaganda like Fox News with Bill O`Reilly and Glenn Beck. I also noticed how many people rejected scientific theories like Evolution and also tried to thwart any progress in certain research fields like stem cell. Every event surprised me that people could think in such a way. I noticed the hate on abortion and the people who opposed it usually have no understanding of what an abortion was.
Religion itself is not the cause of this. Religion is not a living thing. But over thousands of years the great monotheistic religions have gained enough power to become a safe haven for bigoted views of hate and separation. It has been ingrained into our culture. Even people who are not religious in anyway feel the need to support it and deny any criticism.
0
teoretikern wrote...
WellFirst of Im a
pearlist
wich means that I belive in
Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic
I belive the question if god exist or not is meeningles
because as far as I know everything real that there is an explanation for today dosent need god to explain anything. This makes god unneccesary because we can explain things with him or without him. It makes absolutely no difference. furthermore there seem to be no evidence or theory based on evidence that requiers god to make sense.
Therefore the question if god exist or not is as meeningful as if there were intelligent ailiens on earth, santa claus, the flying sphagheti monster, wizards like in harry potter, and so on, as long as we explain them so that they work perfectly with the world we know. But as long as there isnt anything real that requires them to make sense. I have no reason to belive in it, because when Im faced with 2 explanations and the only difference between them is that the first of them have more entities, asumptions, claims etc
I shose the second one!
Ps:
The church of the flying sphagheti monster exists, you should check out there site.
They have a section for Hate Mails ;)
We don't know what happens after death. So the question is not so meaningless, since the existence or not of God could severely impact what happens or not.
0
Buddhist here.
In my religion, we believe that there are many "GODS" if you will. There is not just one GOD, but there is a higher authority GOD that rules other GODS. To be honest i'm not really religious and i'm just Buddhist by name, so this is just one of the few things i know.
I'm not really particular whether a GOD exists or not, but if I had to choose I would like to believe that a GOD does exist. Why? This is because when you're down in the dumps after screwing up something bad, it is in my opinion that you need some kind of belief to keep you going. Something to think about and follow during your times of misfortune. Of course I'm not saying that everyone should have a religion, but I believe that it can help us. Also, it doesn't hurt that you can learn many things from religion that applies to life. (especially in Buddhism, no offense to the many Christians here). A good example that you can learn from Buddhism is the so called "middle way". This basically means that you should live your life in moderation and not overdo things. Don't stand out too much, but also don't make yourself seem invisible. It's a bit complicated to explain, but I find this to be very true and helpful in life.
Anyways, this is what my opinion.
In my religion, we believe that there are many "GODS" if you will. There is not just one GOD, but there is a higher authority GOD that rules other GODS. To be honest i'm not really religious and i'm just Buddhist by name, so this is just one of the few things i know.
I'm not really particular whether a GOD exists or not, but if I had to choose I would like to believe that a GOD does exist. Why? This is because when you're down in the dumps after screwing up something bad, it is in my opinion that you need some kind of belief to keep you going. Something to think about and follow during your times of misfortune. Of course I'm not saying that everyone should have a religion, but I believe that it can help us. Also, it doesn't hurt that you can learn many things from religion that applies to life. (especially in Buddhism, no offense to the many Christians here). A good example that you can learn from Buddhism is the so called "middle way". This basically means that you should live your life in moderation and not overdo things. Don't stand out too much, but also don't make yourself seem invisible. It's a bit complicated to explain, but I find this to be very true and helpful in life.
Anyways, this is what my opinion.
0
Maxiart wrote...
teoretikern wrote...
WellFirst of Im a
pearlist
wich means that I belive in
Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic
I belive the question if god exist or not is meeningles
because as far as I know everything real that there is an explanation for today dosent need god to explain anything. This makes god unneccesary because we can explain things with him or without him. It makes absolutely no difference. furthermore there seem to be no evidence or theory based on evidence that requiers god to make sense.
Therefore the question if god exist or not is as meeningful as if there were intelligent ailiens on earth, santa claus, the flying sphagheti monster, wizards like in harry potter, and so on, as long as we explain them so that they work perfectly with the world we know. But as long as there isnt anything real that requires them to make sense. I have no reason to belive in it, because when Im faced with 2 explanations and the only difference between them is that the first of them have more entities, asumptions, claims etc
I shose the second one!
Ps:
The church of the flying sphagheti monster exists, you should check out there site.
They have a section for Hate Mails ;)
We don't know what happens after death. So the question is not so meaningless, since the existence or not of God could severely impact what happens or not.
that is just the same thing as I pointed out earlier we dont know if wizards like in harry potter are real either or the flying sphagheti monster or the ailiens from men in black or the gigant tentaclemonster and so on. in fact there is an infinity of claims you can do wich works perfectly well with our understanding of the world, but are unneccesary to explain anything. Should we belive in them? How do we decide what to belive in when there is an infinty of things we can come up with, and shourley some of them contradict echother?
One answer is that we belive in the things that have facts to support it through logical reasoning, or that it is already proven. This is my belief.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
Adder wrote...
Spoiler:
There are the problems Rbz pointed out too, but one more thing that I think is problematic is this.
Adder wrote...
Cogito Ergo SumThis is an empty claim. Why?
Wiki-tan wrote...
Bernard Williams claims, for example, that what we are dealing with when we talk of thought, or when we say "I am thinking," is something conceivable from a third-person perspective; namely objective "thought-events" in the former case, and an objective thinker in the latter.The obvious problem is that, through introspection, or our experience of consciousness, we have no way of moving to conclude the existence of any third-personal fact, to conceive of which would require something above and beyond just the purely subjective contents of the mind.
Also, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already pre-supposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:
"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.
Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thinking thing must have something that exists to think it. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.
As your entire argument is derived from the assumption that cogito is true, I think this is enough to show that your argument is a null one.
0
Oh wait maybe I wasnt clear enough. I meant that life after death also is a meeningless question for the same reasons as Ive said twice above. And surerly for example the wizards from harry potter are affecting us if they exist. they just change our memmories afterwards so we dont gett that it was there doing.
0
mibuchiha wrote...
As your entire argument is derived from the assumption that cogito is true, I think this is enough to show that your argument is a null one.Kierkegaard still acknowledges existence, so I don't think it makes a difference.
Plus, rene descartes didn't start from the position of nothing exists, then try to prove existence, but rather, he started from the position that anything that can be doubted will be considered nonexistent. Since you can't doubt your own existence, existence exists.
0
Rbz wrote...
Adder wrote...
Spoiler:
Lol, rene descartes style.
Article wrote...
3.As Aquinas would say, there must be an "act of being" in which all entities participate. This act of being must itself exist; it must be an entity. Thomas calls this entity esse, which is Latin for "to be" or "to exist."
This is where I have big problems. That's like saying, my act of existing in the world is a separate entity from my existence in the world. WTF!
And after splitting me up, this article says that my act of existence in the world is purely actual, while my existence in the world is actual and potential. But the article didn't really distinguish the two entities before step 5 so both of them have to be nothing but pure actuality, or not. You can't just start treating them differently. That would be inconsistent. So either both of them are purely actual(and both gods) or both of them are actual and potential at the same time.
Also, since this different entity exists through my act of existing, then it has potentiality of not existing because it is contingent on my act of existing(or act of being). If I die, I'm no longer participating in the act of being, therefore, this different entity which is the act of being ceases to be. This fact alone annihilates the entire fucking argument.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are misunderstand him. Either that, or I am misunderstanding you. You refer to yourself and Esse as being one and the same, which is not what the article is saying.
The article only mentions your existence in points one and two. It mentions two entities. The second is something entirely different from yourself. It is saying that ALL entities (Me, you, Mibuchiha, Biglundi, everyone...) exists. Therefor the act of existing itself exists as its own entity because we all exist to ourselves, and therefor existence itself is an entity of its own. It refers to this second entity as Esse.
It then elaborates on this idea by saying that the existing of existence cannot change, and so it is actual rather than potential (Whereas as an entity each of us is potential.)..
If Esse is purely actual then it doesn't change. Ever. Which means it is eternal as the argument proposes... Given this we already have a God-like entity, even if it isn't your average humanoid God. It is the existence of a greater force or energy, which is something that some people identify as God anyway. If needed the argument could end right there...However the creator of the article was clearly Christian, and furthers the argument to advance a Christian view-point from this point on. It is still a feasible argument even after this point as well.
In the end I think it also comes down to which philosophers one prefers as well...
0
Adder wrote...
Rbz wrote...
Lol, rene descartes style.Article wrote...
3.As Aquinas would say, there must be an "act of being" in which all entities participate. This act of being must itself exist; it must be an entity. Thomas calls this entity esse, which is Latin for "to be" or "to exist."
This is where I have big problems. That's like saying, my act of existing in the world is a separate entity from my existence in the world. WTF!
And after splitting me up, this article says that my act of existence in the world is purely actual, while my existence in the world is actual and potential. But the article didn't really distinguish the two entities before step 5 so both of them have to be nothing but pure actuality, or not. You can't just start treating them differently. That would be inconsistent. So either both of them are purely actual(and both gods) or both of them are actual and potential at the same time.
Also, since this different entity exists through my act of existing, then it has potentiality of not existing because it is contingent on my act of existing(or act of being). If I die, I'm no longer participating in the act of being, therefore, this different entity which is the act of being ceases to be. This fact alone annihilates the entire fucking argument.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are misunderstand him. Either that, or I am misunderstanding you.
Spoiler:
Yea, yea, I understood the whole argument, but the point is that it's logically flawed. I'll even reword it for you:
And after establishing the existence of two entities, this article says that esse(which is my act of being in the world) is purely actual, while my existence in the world is actual and potential. But the article didn't really distinguish the two entities before step 5 so both of them have to be nothing but pure actuality, or not. You can't just start treating them differently. That would be inconsistent. So either both of them are purely actual(and both gods) or both of them are actual and potential at the same time.
Also, since this different entity(esse) exists through my act of existing, then it has potentiality of not existing because it is contingent on my act of existing(or act of being). If I die, I'm no longer participating in the act of being, therefore, this different entity which is the act of being ceases to be. This fact alone annihilates the entire fucking argument.
0
Rbz wrote...
And after establishing the existence of two entities, this article says that esse(which is my act of being in the world) is purely actual, while my existence in the world is actual and potential. But the article didn't really distinguish the two entities before step 5 so both of them have to be nothing but pure actuality, or not. You can't just start treating them differently. That would be inconsistent. So either both of them are purely actual(and both gods) or both of them are actual and potential at the same time.
Also, since this different entity(esse) exists through my act of existing, then it has potentiality of not existing because it is contingent on my act of existing(or act of being). If I die, I'm no longer participating in the act of being, therefore, this different entity which is the act of being ceases to be. This fact alone annihilates the entire fucking argument.
Except that esse is "To be."....Not "For Rbz to be". It is the existence of existence itself, not the existence of you individually. That's what I was getting at. Therefor if you cease to exist Esse is unaffected becaues unlike you, it isn't potential. Both me and you have the potential to die in five minutes. What happens next is debatable. Regardless, Esse lives on because existence still exists as long as something that is existing has the capacity to know that existence exists. This is why the idea of eternal souls is crucial to religion, but that's another argument entirely...You said yourself earlier on that people lead to God, which by this model is partially true...By this model of thinking, God exists because people know he/she/it exists. If there was no one to know he/she/it existed... Either that, or Esse caused humans to exist to give it a point to exist. Regardless of how..In my mind there is no doubt that it does indeed exist.
Edit: At any rate, I think I'm done debating the topic. I made my case. You guys made your case. It was a fun time- thanks to both Rbz and Mibuchiha- I Look forward to debating with the both of you in the future. I won't have time to get on much until next Friday, and by then this thread will probably be dead :{. I Hope that I at least encouraged a little bit of thought. Even if that thought was simply "Wow, this guy is an idiot."...It means you are at least using reason to figure out why, which is a good thing. Every man will come to his own conclusions. Peace out.